Reprocessing and Recycling of Used Nuclear Fuels : The...

Reprocessing and Recycling of Used Nuclear Fuels : The French Feedback Experience and International Aspects

Dominique GRENECHE

NUCLEAR CONSULTING

[email protected]

IAEA-INPRO meeting – Vienna - 4-7 October, 2010 -

CONTENT

The back-end of the fuel cycle

The French strategy to sustain nuclear energy

Recycling the spent fuel : WHY ?

A unique industrial tool in France

Option for the future

Multilateral approaches for the back-end of the fuel cycle

General trends and issues

Reprocessing of spent fuels

Recycling of fissile materials : MOX and ERU

Transport of fuels and waste

Conclusion

IAEA - INPRO meeting - International aspects of reprocessing and recycling - 4-7 octobre - D GRENECHE

© CEA

PWR fleet & Nuclear fuel cycle in France

Storage

Mines

Concentration

Conversion

Enrichment

Fabrication

of UOx fuel Fabrication

Of MOX fuel

Used fuel

reprocessing

plant 58 PWRs

~63 GWe

Reprocessed Uranium

Natural

Uranium

Ultimate

waste

FP & MA

Used fuel

Used MOX

Interim

storage

Depleted

Uranium

Vitrified

HLW

Compacted

MLW

Plutonium

Interim

storage

FMA-VC


A sustainable Management of Nuclear Fuel & Waste :The Act of June 28, 2006

National Plan for managing nuclearmaterials and radioactive waste (RW)

Guarantees for long term funding of radioactive waste management

Stepwise program for Long-Lived Waste(High and Medium Activity) managementalong various approaches:

Minimize RW : Partitioning & Transmutation: 2012: Assessment of Fast Reactors / ADS

2020: Fast reactor Prototype

Investigate and assess Retrievable Geological

Repository: 2015: Authorization decree

2025: Beginning of operation

Consider long term Interim storage: Creation of new facilities in 2015

Atalante & Phenix


Framework for Recycling Foreign Spent Fuel(art. 8)

► Reinforcing the control of SF importation and waste shipping:

“[Spent fuel] introduction for treatment can be authorized only as part of

intergovernmental agreements and provided the radioactive wastes, resulting after the

treatment of these substances are not stored in France beyond a date set by said

agreements. The agreement states the estimated periods for the reception and treatment

of these substances and, where applicable, the prospects for the subsequent use of

radioactive materials separated during treatment.”

►Practical consequences:

New accounting system for RW

International agreements

Public reporting with detail description of :

Spent fuel and waste packages stockpiles and flows (including reprocessing

and shipping schedule)

Radioactive materials (U, Pu)+ Follow up of inter-governmental agreements


CONTENT











Conclusion


Recyclable materials Waste

FINAL RESIDUESRECYCLINGRECYCLING

FP 15 to 20 kg

(3 to 5 %)

Pu 5 kg

(1 %)

U 475 to 480 kg

(94 to 96 %)

*NOTE : percentage can vary slightly with burnup

Objectives of spent fuel reprocessing

Composition of the LWR spent fuel assembly (FA) after irradiation

1 LWR fuel assembly: 500 kg uranium before irradiation in the reactor


Why reprocess and recycle ?

2 - Reprocessing provides flexible solutions for the long

term : deployment of breeders, MA recycling, …

3 - Saves natural resources : 25 % of natural uranium to

day and avoid the use of it in the long term (with Breeders)

1 - Reprocessing makes waste management easier :

Reduces volume of ultimate HLW conditioned waste (factor 5 to 10)

Can reduce thermal load in final repositories ( lower size and cost)

Strongly reduces overall radiotoxic inventory (up to a factor 10)

Produces well characterized and qualified waste packages

Provides a reliable option for an interim long term storage period

… while protecting human beings and the environment

And for a cost less than 6 % of the cost of the KWh

This contributes to make nuclear energy MORE ACCEPTABLE to the public


Spent fuel radiotoxic inventory versus time :80 % comes from Pu between few centuries and several hundred thousands years

Recycla

ble

mate

rials

Waste Other

1% Pu3-5% FP

94- 96% U

Spent fuel

assembly

Spent fuel radiotoxicity over time

Spent fuel radiotoxicity by component

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 , 000,0000

1

2

3

4

5

6108 Sv/MT

U

Other

Pu

FP

Time in years

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,0000

Time in years

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

FP

Pu

Other

AmNp

UU : Uranium

Pu : Plutonium

FP : Fission

products

Sv : Sievert

Am : Americium

Np : Neptunium


Glass has proven scientifically as a very robust matrix against alteration by water

0,1 %

10 % 100 %

10 000 year 1 million years 10 millions years

Important phenomena are :

• Dissolved silica in the water of the geological media slows down alteration

• Protective gel formed around the glass : increases the longevity of the glass

NaAl

B

SiOP.F.


RECYCLING SAVES NATURAL RESOURCES

Reprocessed uranium (RepU)

Represents about 95 % of the mass of LWRs spent fuel (enrichement 0.8 % to 0.9 %)

but mixed with U236

Its recycling (after re-enrichment) is already experienced by several utilities

throughout the world (in 2 PWRs in France, all RepU in the near future)

Recycling RepU allows to save between 11 % to 13 % of natural U

Plutonium

1 gram of Pu = 1 or 2 tons of oil

In France, all plutonium is recycled in MOX fuel :

roughly 10 tons/year = 12 % natural U saving (equivalence : 10 million tons of

oil, that is 10 % of imported oil)

A gain of a factor 50 or more could be

reached in the future with Gen-IV reactors


To sum up …

Reprocessing / recycling option :

Recycles of the content of spent nuclear fuel

Conserves of our natural resources

Represents less than of the cost of the kWh

Divides waste volumes by (may be more in the future)

Divides waste toxicity by (but if recycled in LWR produces MAs)

Produces waste packages that remain stable for tens of thousands of years : that’s

ease SAFETY DEMONSTRATION of the final disposal of ultimate waste and make

the public more confident to this solution.

Reprocessing gives time and expands choices for the best

possible management of nuclear waste: FLEXIBILITY

96%

25%

6%

5 - 10

10


Public acceptance of nuclear energy :the role of the back-end of the fuel cycle

45%

11%

44%

Favorable Opposé Ne sait pas

Support of EU citizens to Nuclear Energy (Eurobarometer, 2008)

« Without a solution to waste issue »

27%

11%

62%

Favorable Opposé Ne sait pas

« With a solution to waste issue »


CONTENT











Conclusion


The Reprocessing-Recycling Option in France : Industrial tools features and achievements

Reprocessing : The LA HAGUE Plant (startup in end of 70’s for LWR fuels)

Commissioned in 1966 and constantly modernized since then

Uses full proven industrial process : Liquid-Liquid extraction process

(more than 99.8 % of Pu and U recovered)

Total annual capacity : 1700 THM (UP2 + UP3) – Equivalent to 100 PWRs

Allows reprocessing of all types of fuels (including MOX and FNRs fuels)

More than 25 000 THM reprocessed today

On-line conditioning of ultimate waste

Very low occupational exposure of workers (100 times below current regulation

limits) and environmental impact.

Recycling : the MELOX Plant (startup : 1995)

Total annual capacity : 195 THM (U + Pu in MOX fuels)

Adapted to both PWR and BWR fuels (all kinds)

Cumulative production of MOX fuels : more than 1400 THM (end of 2008)


The AREVA La Hague plant


Main steps of reprocessing

Each step has its own process

There is a « nuclear material control an accounting » system (MC&A) at each

step, under the control of EURATOM and IAEA

Customers (utilities) keep the ownership of their nuclear materials and waste

are sent back to the customers

Reprocessing steps

(Shearing,- dissolution - séparation - purification)

Fuel elémentsReceipt

storage

Unités

de traitement

Déchets

liés à l'usage

des installations

Recyclables

material + waste

Uranium (nitrate)

Plutonium (UO2 powder)

Waste of the process

Arrival on

the site

Compacted

(CSD/C)

U

Pu

Hulls and caps

(end fittings)vitrified

(CSD/V)


The spent fuel

storage pools before

reprocessing at the

La Hague plant

(18 000 THM capacity)IAEA - INPRO meeting - International aspects of reprocessing and recycling - 4-7 octobre - D

GRENECHE

Vitrified waste (FP + MA) at La Hague

A robust solution proven with

french experience feedback at the

former reprocessing plant of

Marcoule : 40 years of storage

without any safety problem).


The compacting process (hulls, end-pieces,

tecnological waste, …)


THE MELOX PLANT

Scrap UO2 PuO2

1 Preparation of

primary blend

Powder blending is the key to the

MELOX process

(with on line recycling of scraps)

Primary

blendUO2

2 Preparation of

secondary blend

• Pressing

•Sintering

•Grinding

•Cladding


PuO2 Boxes

+ depleted U

The recycling plant's activities comply with international law and standards

EURATOM treaty: the discharges levels for La Hague and

Melox were approved by the European Commission pursuant

to Article 37

All recycling activities comply with the 2001Joint

Convention on Spent Fuel and Waste (AIEA)

OSPAR Convention: towards zero discharge by 2020 and

application of the Best Available Technology (BAT)

NEA report of 2000 : "The radiological impacts of both the

reprocessing and the non-reprocessing fuel cycles studies are

small, well below any regulatory dose limits for the public and for

workers, and insignificantly low as compared with exposures

caused by natural radiation”.


CONTENT











Conclusion


Advanced recycling : objectives

Further reduce the recycling cost : more integration of workshops, reprocessing and recycling facilities in the same plant, process simplifications (“simplified Purex”, advanced MOX fabrication process), increase of its operating performances (burnup credit, maintenance, environmental impact, waste generation, …), process simulation and control,

Increase reprocessing plant flexibility : high burnup fuels, RTR fuels, MOX, FNR, partitioning of MAs, Cold crucible melter for vitrification, high alpha content glass,….

• Further reduce the ultimate waste, in particular through Partitioning and transmutation (P&T ) : volume, heat, radiotoxicity, …

While enhancing proliferation resistance

(no Pu separation (CoexTM) , safeguard by design, …)IAEA - INPRO meeting - International aspects of reprocessing and recycling - 4-7 octobre - D GRENECHE

Plutonium

recyclingSpent Fuel

No reprocesisng

Uranium Ore (mine)

Time (years)

Rela

tive r

adio

toxic

ity

P&T of MA

Pu +

MA +

FP

MA +

FP

FP

Plutonium is the major contributor to the long term radiotoxicity of spent fuel

Plutonium has a high energetic potential

Plutonium

Radiotoxicity after 1000 years

Fission Products (FP)

Minor actinides (MA)

Plutonium

Minimizing waste with advanced actinide recycling

Plutonium recycling

After plutonium, MA have the major

impact to the long term radiotoxicity MA transmutation

Global Actinide Management in LWRs & Fast Reactors


CONTENT











Conclusion


Recycling comes with a sustainable

nuclear energy

Others

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

GermanySweden

Finland

Wait and see positionDirect disposal

t/an (LWR/AGR)

Recycling

SwitzerlandBelgium

Eastern Europe

Spain

Asia

France

UK

Japan

China

Others

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

USA

GermanySweden

Finland

Wait and see position Direct disposal

t/year (LWR/AGR) (1)

Russia

Recycling

SwitzerlandBelgium

Eeastern Europe

Spain

Asia

2004USA

> 2010 ?

France

UK

Japan

ChinaRussia

Netherland

Netherland

(1) Tons of used fuels per year for Light Water reactors and

for «Advanced Gas Reactor »

India

USA : “Federal loan guarantees are not the most

important incentive needed to support construction

of new nuclear units. The most important issue to

address, to gain public support, is disposition of

spent fuel, and the answer is reprocessing and

recycling that fuel. Technology to do that could be

developed and implemented more rapidly than could

coal combustion technology using carbon capture

and storage” James Rogers, CEO Duke Energy

Recycling : international status


Multinational Approaches to the fuel cycle :

an industrial point of view

Limitation principle and security / guarantees of supply

Long term contracts (but with suspension clauses)

Existence of competitors

Large size profitable facilities

Matched with governmental or international export agreements

Justification principle to allow evolution of capacities

No a priori prohibition of new capacities in new countries IF there is an

economic evidence of the need and IF non proliferation status of the country is

undisputable

Optimization concept

Existing capacities should be better used and preserved

Competition should be kept but financial incentives could be justified

Radiation Protection basic principles can be applied to multinational

approaches for the back-end of the fuel cycle


Control Approach for nuclear materials

EURATOM : In implementation of the article 77 of the EURATOM treaty, the

Commission insure that :

The nuclear materials are not diverted from the declare use,

The respect of provisions about supplies and obligation towards states or international

organizations.

IAEA : Agreement between France, the European Union and the I.A.E.A. (INFCIRC/290) .

I.A.E.A. designation of Melox shipment area for regular inspection of Mox assemblies to be transferred to NNWS as of August 1st, 2001.

Definition of a new nuclear Material Balance Area (MBA)

Legal Basis

B.T.C. (Basic Technical Characteristics) verification of physical

characteristics and access of the MOX send off area periodically re-

verified by inspectors

Continuous inventory of the in-process nuclear materials

Accountancy verification

Physical inventory verification

Control Approach


CONTENT











Conclusion


Statistics of reprocessed spent fuels at La Hague for foreign customers (end of 2009)

With NO send back of

waste

With send back of

waste

Quanities

(THM)Period

Quanities

(THM)

Ended

in

The

Netherland79 1979 - 1995 247 2006

Belgium 40 1980 - 1981 631 2001

Switzerland 70 1976 - 1984 701 2011

Japan 151 1982 - 1986 2793 1999

Germany 172 1977 - 1995 5311 2008


TOTAL 512 + 9683 =

> 10 000 THM

Other reprocessing services are on going or prepared : Australia, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, …

http://football.suisse-blog.ch/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/drapeau-suisse-carre.png

http://02.img.v4.skyrock.net/021/the--japan/pics/1957205275_2.gif

http://www.ac-reims.fr/ia51/elv/Accueil/drapeau.allemand.jpg


Netherlands

Japan

Australia

Italy

Spain

France

Belgium

UK

Germany

Switzerland

Designed for long-term safety, Universal Canisters simplify handling and leave room for shared storage solutions

The waste from reprocessing

• France, Japan, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland & Netherlands

• In progress: SPAIN, AUSTRALIA, ITALY

Internationally Accepted and Qualified Waste Specifications:

“Universal Canister”

(UC)

CONTENT











Conclusion


MOX(1) and ERU(2) fuel market and customers

ERU : Over 30 reactors totalizing more than 5000 ERU FAs(3) in 2010

MOX : Over 36 reactors totalizing more than 6000 MOX FAs(3) in 2010

(first MOX fuel loaded in a NPP in germany in 1972)

This represents about :

About 2500 t of re-enriched uranium, or 20000 t of natural uranium

170 tons of plutonium, that is an equivalent of 35000 t of natural uranium(4).


(1) : MOX : Mixed Oxide (2) : ERU : re-Enriched Reprocessed Uranium (3) : FAs : Fuel Assemblies

That is a saving equivalent to almost ONE YEAR of the worldwide nat U consumption

(4) : According to WNA web site, about 2000 tons of MOX loaded in March 2009. This corresponds to 2400 tons or so at the

end of 2010 that is 170 tons of plutonium assuming an average content of 7 % Pu in MOX

MOX MARKET & CUSTOMERS Recycling in Europe and Japan

Doel

Tihange

Unterweser

Brokdorf

Grohnde

Grafenrheinfeld

Chinon

Saint-Laurent

Le Blayais

Beznau

Philippsburg

Isar

Tricastin

Neckar

Gundremmingen II

PWR BWRGosgen

20

210

3

Gravelines

Dampierre

Emsland

Reactors cores loaded with MOX fuel : 35 (Light WaterReactor)

JAPAN : 11 utilities committed to loading MOX fuels (1 reactor started operation with MOX in 2009)


Reprocessed Uranium (RepU) separated at La Hague and recycled (status in 2009)

Recycling through dilution

Recycling through reenrichissement•* 0,1 et/ou UNGG non inclus

Owners

Franceincl AREVA NC

Japan

Germany

Belgium

Switzerland

The netherland

Spain

Total(rounded)

0*0

310

270 (87%)

740670 (91%)

640

640 (100%)

5480

3140 ( 57%)

2 690450 (17%)

13 550

3 230 (24%)

23 6308 400 (36%)

Italy0

220

Uranium separated (or to come)

Recycled Uranium or send back


CONTENT











Conclusion


Transport of ultimate waste (“residues”) from reprocessing

Vitrified and compacted waste are

conditioned in the same universal

and multi purpose canister, named

the Universal Canister (UC) : easy

handling operations either by a

crane or by a loading/ unloading

machine.

The resulting residue is named:

CSD-V or UC-V for vitrified waste,

CSD-C or UC-C for compacted waste.

For the transport of the vitrified

residues, an IAEA type “B”

packaging is required.


Transport organization from La Hague

Vitrified waste / Europe

Road transport from La Hague plant to Valognes rail-road transfer terminal

Railway transport from Valognes to either the customer storage site, or to a rail-

road transfer terminal and then by road to the storage site.

Vitrified waste / Japan

Road transport from La Hague plant to Cherbourg port

Sea transport from Cherbourg port to the Japanese port (PNTL ships)

Compacted waste

Same conditions will apply.

Specific assessments were necessary to obtain suitable classification from

AIEA and from French security authority (HFDS), in terms of physical protection

(“Category II – Irradiated fuel” like vitrified waste)



http://www.voyagesphotosmanu.com/Complet/images/drapeau_europe.jpg

Statistics of waste transports for foreign customers (end of 2009)

COMPACTED WASTE VITRIFIED WASTE

Number of

transport

per year

Number of

casks per

transportPeriod Started in

Number of

transport

The Netherland 2 1 or 2 2004 - 2013 2004 5

Belgium Up to 3 2 2010 - 2013 2000 14

Switzerland 2 Up to 3 2009 - 2015 2003 8

Japan 1 Up to 7 2013 - 2021 1995 12

Germany Under discussions 2012 - 2024 1996 10


http://football.suisse-blog.ch/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/drapeau-suisse-carre.png


http://www.ac-reims.fr/ia51/elv/Accueil/drapeau.allemand.jpg

General aspects – 1 : a stringent regulatory framework

The transport of radioactive material worldwide is governed by a very

stringent and demanding regulatory regime, which includes

standards, codes and regulations that have been continuously

revised and updated over the past four decades.

In addition to the safety regulations, the regulatory regime addresses

other related issues such as physical protection and liability.

IAEA regulations (first publication in 1961) is a common regulatory

basis for more 60 nations and most of international organizations

dealing with transportation

International Maritime Organization (IMO) has also introduced its own

international code and security rules, in particulars for ships and

containers


General aspects – 2 : an international consensus

In September 1998 the General Conference of IAEA, which brings

together all the Member States of the Agency, recognised that

“compliance with regulations which take

account of the Agency’s Transport

Regulations

is providing a high level of safety during the

transport of radioactive material” (Resolution

GC(42)/RES/13).


General aspects – 3 : technical aspects

All transported nuclear materials are in a solid form and are locked in

special casks

These casks are submitted to extreme accidental conditions tests

(drop, fire, immersion, …)

Sophisticate tracking systems are in force as well are emergency

plans and response teams

Transports are submitted to high safety and security standards

There has never been accident leading to significant radioactive

release in the past 50 years


General aspects – 4 : social aspects

Transportation of nuclear materials (TNM) can be adversely affected by

oppositions from some resident countries (populations, media, or

governments) along shipping routes, in spite of the UNCLOS convention(1).

Industry stakeholders concerned (suppliers of recycling services, utilities, carriers,…) are

conscious of fears and concerns raised by TNM in these countries. Therefore,

they consider that it is their responsibility to inform them on this issue

As part of this effort, industry stakeholders have send representatives in these

countries to understand their preoccupations and to explain them safety and

security provisions of TNM, and to tackle further specialized issues

They have also undertake a program of visits of PNTL facilities and French

recycling plants (example : journalists and environmental association peoples were on board of

the “Pacific Swan” for the crossing of the panama canal in 1998). Number of information

means are also widely used (brochures, video, interviews,…)

(1) : The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes rules governing all uses of the world's oceans,

seas, and their resources. It clearly establish that costal states have no right to deny passage to ships transporting nuclear materials


http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm

Ship for international nuclear material transportation (PNTL : Pacific Nuclear Transport Ltd(1))

Satellite antena

(navigation and

communication)

Twin

radars

Reinforced metallic thick slab

for holds (hatch covers)

Twin

propellers

and rudders

Main

electricity

generatorsIndependent engines

and gearboxesCollision

reinforcement (20 mm plates)

Secondary

collision

bulkhead

Primary

collision

bulkhead

Salvage

towing

brackets

Salvage

towing

brackets

(1) Dedicated subsidiary of International Nuclear Services Ltd (GB), TN

International and Japanese companies. It owns 3 ships and has

already carried out more than 170 transports (2000 casks)

It complies with ISO 9001 and 14001 requirements.

The ships have safely covered more than 5 million miles and there has

never been a single incident resulting in the release of radioactivity


International transports : some denials and delays(1)

Some shipping companies, air carriers and port terminals have policies

refusing to transport radioactive material (“Class 7”)

Impediment to transport only due to radioactive properties of the material for

transport

Possible reasons are

worries about insurance implications

perception of other customers whose goods they want to carry, personal feelings

special handling procedures or reporting requirements too complicated and too

onerous

problem with ports and terminals which do not accept Class 7 cargoes

IAEA has put in place an International Steering Committee on Denials of

Shipments (DoS) with 6 regional coordinators

IAEA and IMO have created a joint data base on DoS to collect the records

occurring anywhere in the world and has identified National Focal Points to

which industry could address in case of DoD


(1) – “Denials and delays of radioactive shipments - Bernard Monot – IAEA - Conference PIME 2010

CONTENT











Conclusion


Conclusion on back-end of fuel cycle (1/2)

Many nuclear countries (and most of countries having a significant nuclear program) consider that RECYCLING is the best strategy for achieving a SUSTAINABLE nuclear energy (while avoiding spent fuel accumulation and buildup of “plutonium mines”)

Quite extensive industrial worldwide experience already exist on reprocessing and recycling : it is in particular a mature industry in France

Reprocessing makes waste management easier and safer, while keeping high standards of safety and quality as well as having very low environmental impact : this provides a steady back-end solution in France

The PUREX process used in France will dominate the world industrial reprocessing for next decades (including its variants such as COEXTM)


Conclusion on back-end of fuel cycle (2/2)

R&D priorities should focus on new improvements of this process :

Further reduce its cost

Increase its flexibility (adaptation to new fuels, adaptation to innovative management of radionuclides, …)

Enhance its operating performances (maintenance, environmental impact, waste generation, …)

New requirements may appear in the near future :

Partitioning of MA (or even LLFP)

Intrinsic proliferation resistance constraints (no pure Pu separation)

R and D should also address these issues

R and D on future reactors (GEN IV) must be backed up with R and D on their associated fuel cycle

Industrial recycling facilities in France have already been used by foreign

customers and could meet additional needs along the lines of Multi-National

Approaches concepts.


To sump up, CLOSING the fuel cycle ….…has been always viewed in France as a national interest driven issue by policy makers and industrial actors

…is an industrial reality with more than 25000 tons of LWR fuel reprocessed more than 100 tons of plutonium recycled in France

…meets highest safety and environmental standards and features outstanding records in this area

…has clearly been proven a cost effective solution for spent fuel management while being a flexible way to cope with future challenges

… has been largely and successfully implemented on a multinational basis, proving the feasibility of this approach for the back-end of the fuel cycle, as promoted by IAEA

CLOSING THE FUEL CYCLE ENABLES TO EXPLOIT ALL ENVIRONEMENTAL ASSETS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY AND HELPS MAKING THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY A REALITY


Atoms for peace !

Thank you IAEA - INPRO meeting - International aspects of reprocessing and recycling - 4-7 octobre - D GRENECHE

COMPLEMENTARY SLIDES


The role of recycling in assets and challenges of nuclear energy

Assets of Nuclear Energy

Competitiveness

Security of supplies (mainly national industry)

Minimal impact on environment

NO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Challenges (sustainability criteria for Nuclear Energy)

Long term availability of uranium Breeder reactors + recycling

Waste management recycling (+ P&T ?)

Non proliferation Multinational approach for fuel cycle services (IAEA, GNEP,

International fuel cycle centers, …) + efficient institutional and international

control regimes (safeguards, NSG, …) + plutonium control (no “plutonium

mines”) and degradation (Pu in spent MOX fuel = non weapon usable)

FUEL CYCLE back-end plays a fundamental

role to cope with these challenges


Generation I - DEMANTELERGeneration II1st Generation 2nd Generation 3rd Generation 4th Generation

PUREX

Marcoule UP1

Hanford, Savannah (US)

1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090

PUREX + MOX

La Hague, Melox

Rokkasho-Mura (Japan)

COEX™

Integrated U-Pu recycling plant

Multirecycling of Pu and of all minor actinides or of a part of them

Future trends of the fuel cycle objectives


"let me remind you of the fact that light water reactors, such as AREVA’s

EPR, present absolutely no risk in themselves as far as proliferation is

concerned. As for the nuclear material needed to operate such reactors, it

may become sensitive only when associated with the mastering of highly

sophisticated dual-use technologies, namely uranium enrichment and

spent-fuel treatment. But most countries do enjoy the benefits of nuclear

energy without having to master those technologies : thanks to a well-

functioning fuel-cycle market, with suppliers like AREVA that provide

enrichment and spent fuel management services at competitive prices,

they simply do not need it"

Multinational Approaches to the fuel cycleassessing the proliferation threat

4 Challenges

1. No diversion of nuclear material under safeguards to undeclared illicit uses

2. Absence of undeclared (ie clandestine) facilities, through the use of imported

technology or equipments or through purely national developments

3. No theft of weapons grade material or weapons from the military stockpiles

4. No use of civil facilities, equipments and materials for weapons fabrication in

case of withdrawal from NPT

Fuel cycle concerns

Sensitive facilities and material can be properly safeguarded (up to now,

there is no case of diversion and misuse of safeguarded material )

BUT

No guarantee upon use of sensitive facilities after withdrawal from NPT


IAEA Safeguards control approach

Measurements before shipment

Assembly measurements : Neutron

Gamma

Active length*

Assembly sealing Fuel Holder

Container

Accountancy verification

An Inventory Change Report (ICR) sent on a monthly basis to EURATOM

Luxembourg accountancy service. Lists, each month, all the occured accountancy

transactions.

Physical inventory at the end of the shipment operations check assembly left.

It is sent by EURATOM to I.A.E.A.


Conclusion on non proliferation concerns (industrial approach) - 1/2

Nuclear industry is an important stakeholder in the non proliferation debate

Proliferation issue serves as argument against the use of nuclear power and development of industry

Support or acceptance of public opinion is needed

Non proliferation is part of ethical rules and sustainable development

Industry has a major role as a designer of nuclear facilities, a sensitive material holder, a supplier of surveillance and safeguards equipment, an exporter of material, equipment and technology

Industry can contribute to counter proliferation efforts by securing material from the military sector


Conclusion on non proliferation concerns (industrial approach) - 2/2

A strong institutional non proliferation framework is already in place in France through :

International safeguards

France, as a signatory of NPT is under IAEA and EURATOM safeguards + additional protocol regime (ratified by France)

Export control procedures

As a member of Nuclear Supplier Group, France follows closely its guidelines (i.e; very stringent conditions for the export of sensitive technologies or nuclear materials)

Bi lateral agreements are also implemented (ex. with Japan)

IAEA conventions

Physical Protection, safety, waste management.


Date post:	25-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	9 times
Download:	0 times

Reprocessing and Recycling of Used Nuclear Fuels : The...

Documents